You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO MOTHER AND MOTHER PRESENTED EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER WAS PROPERLY SERVED IS REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing on whether mother was properly served with the neglect petition was necessary:

… [P]etitioner failed in the first instance to establish that the documents were mailed to the mother’s ” ‘last known address’ ” inasmuch as “[t]he affidavit of service says that the [papers] were mailed [by prepaid, first class mail] . . . , without identifying th[e] address” to which they were mailed … . In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the process server’s affidavit was sufficient to create the presumption of valid service, we conclude that the mother’s submissions were sufficient to rebut that presumption.

The mother’s attorney submitted an affidavit from his legal assistant establishing that the person who accepted service mistakenly thought the papers were for his daughter, who shared the same first name as the mother. That person also informed the legal assistant that the mother had never resided at that address and that the mother’s father, with whom petitioner believed the mother was residing, “had moved out of the home months earlier.” We thus conclude that the mother rebutted any presumption that she was properly served at her “actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode so as to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 308 (2) [or (4)]” … . Additionally, we note that petitioner’s own submissions in the application for an order of substituted service raise a question whether the mother ever resided at the address listed in the affidavit of service inasmuch as that address was not among the numerous identified addresses for her. Matter of William A. (Jessica F.), 2021 NY Slip Op 01580, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, SUED THE PRIOR OWNER IN NEGLIGENCE FOR DAMAGES STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION ON THE PROPERTY; LIABILITY FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY CEASES UPON TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supeme Court, determined plaintiff’s negligence cause of action seeking damages for exposure to contaminants on the land plaintiff purchased from defendant city should have been dismissed. A property owner’s liability for a dangerous condition ceases upon the transfer of the property:

We … agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the negligence cause of action, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. That cause of action is based on allegations that plaintiff was injured due to a dangerous condition on the parcel of property that defendant sold to plaintiffs, i.e., chemical contamination, to which plaintiff was exposed after the sale. It is well settled that “[o]ne’s liability in negligence for the condition of land ceases when the premises pass out of one’s control before injury results. Such is the general rule” … . Thus, under that general rule, defendant’s liability for negligence based on a dangerous condition on the property ended when it sold the parcel to plaintiffs … , and “liability may be imposed upon defendant only if the allegedly dangerous condition . . . existed at the time [it] relinquished possession and control of the premises ‘and the new owner has not had a reasonable time to discover the condition, if it was unknown, and to remedy the condition once it is known’ ” … .

Here, defendant met its burden on the motion of establishing that any injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff was caused by exposure after defendant sold the property. In response, “plaintiff[s have] offered nothing to show that [they, as] the new owner[s,] did not have adequate time to discover and remedy such defects” … . Powers v City of Geneva, 2021 NY Slip Op 01684, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS, MATTER REMITTED; THE USUAL PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARDING CUSTODY TO A NONPARENT DO NOT APPLY TO A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT WITH A NONPARENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined father’s petition for modification of custody should not have been dismissed as moot without making a determination of the merits. The court noted that the usual requirements for awarding custody to a nonparent did not apply to the maternal aunt in this case because she did not petition for custody and the children were merely placed with her temporarily:

The father initially filed a petition for modification of custody and visitation against the mother, seeking primary residential custody of their three children. Petitioner Genesee County Department of Social Services then commenced a neglect proceeding against the mother, and the mother consented to the entry of orders finding the subject children to be neglected children. Family Court held a joint hearing regarding the neglect petition and the father’s custody petition … , after which the court placed the children with their maternal aunt with the mother’s consent but over the father’s objection, and dismissed the father’s custody petition as moot.

… [W]e agree with the father that the court erred in dismissing his petition for modification of custody and visitation as moot without making a determination on the merits of his petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 … . We further agree with the father that, ” ‘[a]s between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances’ ” … . Nevertheless, on the facts of this case, we conclude that the maternal aunt did not have the burden of making a showing of extraordinary circumstances inasmuch as she did not file a petition in this matter and was not awarded custody of the children, but rather the children were placed with her for the pendency of the article 10 proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 1017 … . Matter of Michael J.M. v Lisa M.H., 2021 NY Slip Op 01573, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MOTION NOT RULED UPON BELOW; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department remitted the case for a ruling on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal. An appellate court cannot consider a motion not ruled upon:

Defendant … contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction with respect to all counts. At the close of proof, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal, and the court reserved decision. There is no indication in the record that the court ruled on defendant’s motion (cf. CPL 290.10 [1]). Thus, we may not address defendant’s contention because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 01675, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION TESTIFIED SHE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED HER BOYFRIEND OF THE RAPE AND, A FEW HOURS LATER, NOTIFIED HER MOTHER; HER MOTHER TESTIFIED BUT THE BOYFRIEND WAS NOT CALLED; THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE CUMULATIVE; THE CONCEPT OF “CUMULATIVE” EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defense request for the missing witness jury instruction should have been granted. The alleged victim in this rape case testified she promptly reported the rape to her boyfriend and, a few hours later, told her mother. The People called her mother as a witness, but not her boyfriend. The trial judge denied the missing witness charge on the ground that the testimony would be cumulative:

In People v Smith (33 NY3d 454 [2019]), the Court of Appeals held that the proponent of a missing witness charge has no initial burden to show that the missing testimony would not be cumulative of the remaining testimony, and that the concept of cumulativeness in this context functions only as a tool for defeating an otherwise-meritorious request for a missing witness instruction (id. at 458-460). Thus, the Court of Appeals explained, the opponent of the missing witness instruction has the burden of showing that the missing testimony would be cumulative in order to defeat the requested instruction on that ground (id.).

Applying the standard set forth in Smith, we conclude that the People failed to show that the boyfriend’s testimony would have been cumulative of the mother’s testimony. The respective accounts would concern different outcries, separated by several hours and many blocks. The boyfriend could not have duplicated the mother’s account of the complainant’s outcry, because the boyfriend was not present during that particular event. Conversely, the mother could not have duplicated the boyfriend’s account of the complainant’s outcry, because the mother was not present during that particular event. People v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 01571, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOT SUPREME COURT, IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proper forum for the declaratory judgment cause of action against the state was the Court of Claims. The plaintiffs had filed a breach of contract action in the Court of Claims and this declaratory judgment action is incidental to the alleged breach of contract. Therefore the Court of Claims should handle it:

The Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over claims for breach of contract against the State … . As long as the primary claim is for money damages, the Court of Claims “may [also] apply equitable considerations” and grant incidental equitable relief … . Here, because the relief sought in the complaint arises out of an alleged breach of contract, the proper forum for this action is the Court of Claims … . Rice v New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd., 2021 NY Slip Op 01669, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

WHEN DEFENDANT BECAME DISRUPTIVE JUST BEFORE THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE BROUGHT IN THE JUDGE HAD HIM REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT FIRST WARNING HIM AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the failure to warn defendant before removing him from the courtroom during jury selection required a new trial:

On the morning that jury selection was scheduled to begin, but before the prospective jurors had been brought into the courtroom, defendant began shouting, insisting that the court was calling him by the wrong name and that he could not wear the clothes provided to him. The court immediately had defendant removed from the courtroom, stating that it deemed defendant to have waived his right to be present based on his “outburst and behavior.” After defendant had been removed, the court stated that defendant’s “voice was raised to a level of almost deafening proportions, and it was very clear that it was imminent he was going to turn violent.” Defendant was absent for the selection of the first 11 jurors, but returned to the courtroom at the next recess and did not cause any further disruption.

A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of trial, and that right is “violated by his or her absence during the questioning of prospective jurors during the impaneling of the jury” … . However, “[a] defendant’s right to be present during trial is not absolute” … . CPL 260.20 provides, in relevant part, “that a defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct” … . People v Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 01668, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHEMICAL BREATH TEST SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED; NEW SUPPRESSION HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, on an appeal by the People, determined County Court should not have suppressed the chemical breath test evidence in this DWI case because the People were not given an opportunity to respond to that suppression issue. The matter was remitted for a new suppression hearing:

… [T]he court erred in granting that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress evidence because the court failed to notify the People of its intention to consider that issue and failed to give the People an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing on that issue … . At the Huntley hearing, the issues of the officer’s compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 and defendant’s limited right to counsel were merely ancillary. Moreover, we reject defendant’s contention that the limited evidence that was admitted at the hearing supports the court’s determination to suppress the chemical breath test results. The evidence at the hearing established that the police administered a field breath test and then a chemical breath test at the jail, only the latter of which is the subject of section 1194 (2) (a) and would be admissible at trial … , but the court conflated the administration of both tests in determining that suppression was warranted. On this record, it is unclear whether the officer complied with section 1194 (2) (b) by warning defendant of the consequences of refusal in ” ‘clear and unequivocal language’ ” before administering the chemical test … . The record is also unclear whether defendant, who made a request to speak with his attorney, was afforded the opportunity to do so prior to deciding whether to submit to the chemical breath test … . People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 01570, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID AND THE SENTENCE WAS UNDULY HARSH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and his sentence was unduly harsh. The sentences were modified to run concurrently, not consecutively:

We agree with defendant that the purported waiver of the right to appeal is not enforceable inasmuch as the totality of the circumstances fails to reveal that defendant “understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived” … . Here, County Court provided no oral explanation of the waiver of the right to appeal and the written waiver executed by defendant “mischaracterized the waiver of the right to appeal, portraying it in effect as an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal” … . We note that the better practice is for the court to use the Model Colloquy, which “neatly synthesizes . . . the governing principles” … . People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 01666, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DID RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WHICH REQUIRES A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment on the ground defendant had not been properly served with the complaint should not have been granted. The matter was remitted for a hearing to determine the validity of the service of process:

” ‘Ordinarily, the affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant was validly served’ ” … . Although ” ‘bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service . . . , a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing’ ” … . Here, the presumption of service was created by the affidavit of plaintiff’s process server, but defendant rebutted that presumption by submitting, inter alia, his sworn affidavit in which he averred that he had never been personally served, that since at least 2013 he had rented out the dwelling at the address reflected on the affidavit of the process server, that it had been rented to the individual reflected on the affidavit of service, that defendant “did not live or otherwise reside [at the address] in any form,” and instead that he had been living at another address at the time of the purported service. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant’s submissions raised ” ‘a genuine question’ ” on the issue whether service was properly effected in accordance with CPLR 308 (2) … . Garvey v Global Asset Mgt. Solutions, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 01664, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy